Announcement

**hack** · October 1, 2019, 11:03 AM

Previews are lowest-value content for that very reason. If you take them at face value the games are always crazy outliers. It's the post-fact analysis that is really valuable.

**maxreturn** · October 2, 2019, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by iam416 View Post

The ship is righted.

I'll believe it when I see it. I'll be more convinced of that after I see this team beat a good football team and don't see another post game presser where the coach laments about being outprepared, outcoached and outplayed.

**lineygoblue** · October 2, 2019, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by maxreturn View Post

I'll believe it when I see it. I'll be more convinced of that after I see this team beat a good football team and don't see another post game presser where the coach laments about being outprepared, outcoached and outplayed.

^^^ This ^^^

**Jeff Buchanan** · October 3, 2019, 03:54 PM

I've been trying to figure out today how the fuck talent thinks M is going to win by "something like 17" or why a guy who seems pretty sharp about betting on CFB games - wait I just checked his record, forget that - wagered $2500 of DSL's Monopoly money on Michigan to win and cover. Nobody is doing that. So, I started looking for things that might produce an M win:

Brian's Rutgers UFR Offense? Other than Patterson is a pretty good passer when a pass play is called in and when Rutger's has no pass rush at all because 1/2 the time they bring 3! .... No. It does help though he's throwing to two NFL prospect WRs and several speed ballers. That seemed to be in vogue last Saturday. Let's hope in continues sans a lot of pressure from Iowa reduced by that "All Big Ten" OL performing to expectations. They've that has been ok but not that.

...... and, according to Brian, Michigan is trying to do too many things in the run game and is not very good at any of them (I differ with that view, but still the numbers, as talent would say, res ipsa loquitur ). Many have expressed the view that M's not going anywhere this season if it can't run the ball and stop the run and they don't seem to be able to do either.

So What is there:

A decent metric for pressure is sacks. Iowa has 5 through 4 games. Not great. It's pretty clear that given coaching reluctance to let Patterson run and a decided decline in ZRs (he's doing a lot of PA fakes in a distinctly power run game), the passing game has been more productive and something Gattis seemed to be leaning on v. Rutgers. So, yeah, maybe Patterson to large NFL prospect receivers running fade, out, flat, anything routes, will light up Iowa's injury depleted secondary. Maybe. I can hope ......

Getting back to the run game. Michigan is still pretty good at power IZ/OZ and stretch. Well, sorta good. Brian thinks it's limited by Warinerr's affection for man blocking that eschews double teams. In those, there should be a switch to 2nd level by one of those guys off a read. I didn't see that in the video I watched. There were double teams going on along with reads just fine. There was decent climbing to the second level too.....maybe not as effectively engaging those 2nd level guys as you'd like.

What I think is going on is that the run game is setting up the next pass play. That's not an extraordinary statement for sure but at least we're not seeing M beat it's head against the wall with multiple, sequential, failed run plays in a series. Besides, every defense is selling out to stop M's run game. Rutger's did the same and in some unique ways (I'll get to that). This is the first time v. Rutgers, that I think the offense, whether through better execution, play-calls or pre-snap reads and audibles, effectively punished a defense for doing that.

Against Rutgers, a team M should have crushed with the run, the problem was LBs or Ss getting free runs, usually on a delay, into conveniently uncovered gaps in the OL. The way Rutgers did this was to overload one side of the line - the purpose of which was to enable the D to get a numbers advantage by using the DE on that side to get back side pursuit. That works pretty well against M's penchant to run a lot miss-direction. i.e., the line action flows left, the play goes right, the unblocked DE get's back-side pursuit and a viper type or S on the play side jets into the gap and mucks up the play in a sort-of pincer movement with the back-side DE. Fine. I don't think the yards gained on that play are important. While the run play may not produce a lot of yards, it sets up a pass play off the same looking PA run fake with everybody on the D thinking, I got this, flowing to the running back and whoops, uncovered receivers in the left flat or running an out pattern.

It's worth pointing out here what Gattis is doing with the pass routes is starkly different from what Pep did. The way they provide receiver options for Patterson is effective. BTW, I love what this guy does. There are 17 videos here of completely diagrammed and explained plays. You'll see in here if you want to look, the receiver routes, the thing with over-loading one side of the D with LBs and OL run and run blocking explained better than anything Brian provides. He sometimes contradicts Brian's takes in some areas. https://mgoblog.com/diaries/film-ana...ensive-success

So, yeah, you want to be able to run but a run that produces a 2-3 yard gain that observers then complain about, has to be seen in the context of the series and that the the next play-call in the series is very likely to leave uncovered receivers opposite the RB action of the previous play. First down, chains move.

In summary, on offense, I think Michigan can feature the same kind of passing attack we saw v. Rutgers. The run game, whether or not it puts up big numbers, may not matter if the passing game is set up by it and the chains move. Patterson's windows may be tighter v. Iowa coverage but Rutger's secondary was not chopped liver. Iowa's secondary may not be much better than Rutgers' given their DB injuries. Collins, Black, DPJ, Sanistril and Johnson all got separation from time to time on Rutgers' DBs. I'd expect similar v. Iowa's. This is Michigan's strength and I think the coaches know it.

On defense, gap discipline is going to be key because of the type of scheme Brown has been deploying that depends on Ss and LBs to fill in place of a questionable DL. Can't lose the edge doing this either. That's been a problem because the DEs and Ss (sometimes even the LBs with edge responsibility) play aggressively and the exchange on the scrape exchange, if it's in, has gotten screwed up. Counting on some improvement here against a quality opponent. It was bad v. Wisconsin.

I think M can win this game if things go well and there aren't a lot of mistakes. I like what I'm seeing with the adjustments to the offense based on what Patterson does well. Power works to set up the pass when Patterson is held back from being a run threat. If that gets introduced back into the offense v. Iowa, meaning it's a true ZR/RPO thing and that thing is run smoothly and mistake free, M can score a bundle of points ..... talent must be thinking that will finally happen. I'm still doubtful with Patterson at QB. I also think M's defense matches up pretty well with Iowa's offense as long as Iowa's OL doesn't push M's DL around and, like Wisconsin, Iowa rips off a lot of runs. Stanley is solid. I don't know if he's a game changer on the road. Hoping he is not.

**lineygoblue** · October 3, 2019, 04:29 PM

From the Detroit News:

This is Michigan's homecoming game, and Iowa has felt quite at home. The Hawkeyes have won their last two trips to Michigan, in 2002 and 2010, and both have been Michigan homecoming games. Iowa has won two straight, and five of the last six meetings against Michigan. Michigan has won 20 of its last 24 homecoming games.

So much for history.

I just can't get past how easily Michigan has been moved off the ball on defense, and how well Iowa does it. Army brought in an under sized and out talented OL, and moved Michigan out of the way whenever they needed to. Wisconsin acted like Michigan wasn't even playing with a DL.

And now comes Iowa, that prides itself on its interior line play, and Michigan is ripe for the picking. There wasn't much in the Rutgers game to indicate that Michigan's DL had dramatically improved and would somehow be prepared for the Hawkeyes. I see Iowa treating Michigan's front seven the same way Army did. They'll get whatever they need, whenever they need it.

On defense, Iowa has DE AJ Epenesa, who will likely be All Big Ten this year, along with Daviyon Nixon who has 11 tackles to lead all Iowa linemen, and has 2.5 tackles for a loss. That's a defensive group that has to be respected. And they also have to be blocked. I don't see Michigan doing that with any effectiveness. So, forget the running game. Michigan only runs between the tackles anyway, so its easily defended.

Iowa will be just like Army. Well coached, well disciplined, and they'll wait for Michigan to make mistakes that they can take advantage of. They'll utilize long scoring drives to shorten the game, and keep Michigan's offense on the sideline.

And oh yes,.. Iowa has better talent than Army. So there's that too.

Michigan will likely play inspired ball since its homecoming, but historically, Iowa doesn't give a rat's patoot if its Michigan's homecoming. They'll be here to win, .. and they will.

I'll cut Michigan some slack and believe that they'll make a better effort than they did against Wisconsin and Army, but Iowa is simply the better team.

Iowa 27
Mich 20

**Jeff Buchanan** · October 4, 2019, 09:35 AM

I've been waiting for this because understanding Iowa's defense and advantaging your offense to it is where this game is going to be won or lost. Cliff Notes:

Iowa's secondary is a question mark - that's because it's an unknown how DC Phil Parker will deploy the pieces he has. There are injuries but this piece spins a bunch of options for Parker, none of them likely to make all the tricks in cover-2 work smoothly. Throw the damn ball - a lot!

Iowa runs a 4-3-4, cover-2, zone defense. Parker does very little exotic stuff compared to Don Brown. Notwithstanding the comment above, Iowa is very good at running this D. Patterson, according to some observers, has trouble with zone defenses. Maybe. My take on Patterson has been that the coaches are giving him plays where he's only working half the field. He DOES NOT see the other half, sometimes with blitheringly open receivers on the opposite side of where the play is designed, because he's not supposed to even worry about that. Sure, it limits the passing game but it also almost completely eliminates his tendency to break the pocket that could be because he has to digest too much information and gets panicky about that. He's more likely to successfully roll-out or pocket pass from a stable platform when he has less to digest.

Iowa blitzes a lot - brings 6 at a 20% clip on standard downs. This is weird - and very effective - because they bring 6 on only 11% of passing downs. Michigan has been vulnerable to getting the mesh timing mucked up with pressure. Another benefit that goes to Iowa is when they do this, it's not the DTs getting into the action. They are cannon fodder that falls down conveniently for them right in the path the offense is trying to plow for the RB.

Iowa State ran the Arc-Zone Read very effectively with the QB keeping alternating with the RB keeping. This kept the threat of Iowa's excellent DEs to a minimum. Patterson has absolutely got to keep. He can run this play really well. We've seen it ..... just not this season in a combo. Defenses know he won't keep. Iowa's defense knows he will not keep. BREAK TRENDS FOR DOLLARS!

Certain people think that M's run-game against Rutgers sucked - and it did. But they also think that what Milton did when he was in, which was good for the run game, doesn't mean shit. Well, sorry, it does. That's because Milton is a threat to keep. Rutgers, as bad as they were, had to adjust to that which means there's one less defender - the guy responsible for QB keeps - in the box. With that, paving an open lane for whichever RB is carrying the rock is way easier. So what, you might say ...... well, Gattis HAS to start running Patterson or he has to put Milton in situationally. We've seen that with what turned out to be ineffectively putting both of those guys on the field. Waste of a play. That is not to say Milton can't be put in to actually run the ZR/RPO if Patterson can't for whatever reason. There are so many play options that it's not like you're signaling he's going to keep or it's going to be a run. That's the fucking purpose of the ZR/RPO offense. It creates one or more conflict players on defense that can be read and the right play selected at the mesh. I'd like to see more of this v. Iowa.

Fee Fi Foe Film: Iowa Defense 2019 | mgoblog

https://mgoblog.com/content/fee-fi-foe-film-iowa-defense-2019#read-more

Previously: The Offense Resources: My charting, Iowa game notes, Iowa roster, CFBstats There are four storylines to track with the Iowa defense this year. The first, and longest coming, is the defensive tackle depth after a backlog of DL talent caused a spate of transfers in 2016-'17, then graduated in 2018. The second is the push-pull between DC Phil Parker's beloved linebackers and the 21st century's demand that you turn one of them into a hybrid safety. The third is AJ Epenesa: what does Iowa do with a bona fide 5-star defensive end who's the size of an offensive tackle and runs like a safety? Lastly it's injuries; like Michigan the Hawkeyes got pretty banged up, particularly in their secondary depth, in the first few weeks of the season. Some of those guys are back but unable to reclaim old starting positions. Some of them are out and sorely missed. The film: El-Assico! Iowa State runs a similar offense to Michigan's. Also they're not MTSU, Rutgers, or Miami (NNTM). Also they fall down, miss assignments, hold a lot, and fumble. They're good at bombs and arc zone. Also sorry about the video quality. I had a massive H.265 file that doesn't work with anything yet, and a condensed version of the game that wasn't in great resolution but, you know, worked. I used the latter whenever I could. Personnel: My diagram: PDF Version, full-size version (or click on the image) Michigan's banged up and have mostly surrendered their stars for florping around all season. At least one former star is one more bad game away from cyan. Onwenu got his finally, and Collins keeps his. If you made weekly depth chart graphics you could send messages to the coaching staff too. On the flip side, yes that's Mario's brother, Michael Ojemudia (+2/-3.5 in coverage, +2/-0 vs run), and yes he's somehow pretty decent, though I think he plays soft to make up for his general Ojemudianess. The other cornerback spot had meh/oft-injured Matt Hankins at it last year, backed up by meh Julius Brents, and now features redshirt freshman DJ Johnson (+7/-6, +2/-1), who's holding down the fort for Hankins (out) but remains ahead of Brents, who returns this week. ISU tested Johnson all day and he was mostly there on the deep stuff and not there for the first ten yards underneath. It's a similar story with safety, where preseason projected starter Kaevon Merriweather is back but according to reports is now stuck behind FS Jack Koerner (+4/-11 coverage, +1/-0 run), who gave up most of ISU's points on a pair of EXTREME –4s, thus the cyan. SS Geno Stone (+3/-2 coverage, +3/-1 run) got to start at strong safety last year when the old SS was drafted for hybrid duty, although Stone himself looks and plays a lot like a hybrid. He also got to spend most of this day chilling while ISU ignored his side for the Koerner/Johnson one. I was disappointed in the latest linebacker crop. MLB Kristian Welch (+4.5/-2 run, +0/-3 coverage) is decent; he's good at reading and reacting to the run and not great at playing his zone. WLB Djimon Colbert (+3/-6 run, +1/-9! coverage) was a tackling machine last year as a redshirt freshman rotation player and blitzer, but throwing coverage onto his plate seems to have short-circuited him. He is discussed more thoroughly below. After playing with an HSP last year, Parker is back to using a more traditional strongside linebacker, mostly because Nick Niemann (+0/-3, +5/-2) is too much of a throwback, thump-ya SAM for an old school guy like Parker to leave on the bench. Niemann will also play WLB over Colbert when they go to their nickel, which they don't do very often. Merriweather appears to be the guy, though there's another Niemann-esque guy in Barrington Wade they want to play. The line is way better than the preseason whinging suggested. Both DEs, Chauncey Golston (+9.5/-4) and AJ Epenesa (+16.5/-2) played a ton last year in rotational roles; Golston had some trouble defending zone reads early but also paid off a lot of the singling he gets with Epenesa constantly demanding all extra blockers. Left DT Cedrick Lattimore (+4/-1) was the returning rotational piece who was always just some weight away from being okay, and at 295 as a senior he's there as a run stopper, though only a little dangerous as a pass rusher. Right DTs Daviyon Nixon (+2.5/-0) and Austin Schulte (+1/-1) are line of scrimmage players, solid at the type of run defense they play but don't offer any pass rush. The low numbers for the interior guys suggest Parker's plan might be to mitigate them some. [after THE JUMP: You can mitigate DTs?] No. I didn't mean to suggest that. [after THE JUMP: False advertising!]

**THE_WIZARD_** · October 4, 2019, 09:41 AM

That may the shortest post I've ever seen from you...

**hack** · October 4, 2019, 09:58 AM

I think yours should be shorter. A good rule of thumb for how long your posts should be is one word for every 1,000 Jeff writes.

**THE_WIZARD_** · October 4, 2019, 10:08 AM

STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU
STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU
STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU
STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU

STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU
STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU

STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU STFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUST FUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFUSTFU

**THE_WIZARD_** · October 4, 2019, 10:08 AM

That was one word.

**hack** · October 4, 2019, 10:45 AM

I scored it as three

**THE_WIZARD_** · October 4, 2019, 11:12 AM

BULLSHIT!!!

**hack** · October 4, 2019, 11:16 AM

One. Good job.

**THE_WIZARD_** · October 4, 2019, 11:29 AM

shad dup

**Jeff Buchanan** · October 4, 2019, 02:24 PM

This is also good ......... https://mgoblog.com/content/preview-iowa-2019#read-more

Mainly because Brian doesn't stick his neck out and make claims about Patterson or the OL that aren't supportable/have supportable different takes. I was looking for that in his Iowa preview. None of that was fond.

No need to repeat it . Brain said everything I've said here about this game so, there is that. I actually think I'm good at this now.

The one thing new I found was that the scary DE guy, A J Epenesa, is characterized in Brian's preview as a "mauler who is agile enough to protect the edge." He can skirt around whatever tackle he's lined up against to bother the QB on pass plays but makes good reads when he needs to contain and force a jet sweep to cut back inside. I assume he is also good at defending M's questionable screen game. That could be a problem. So add can M isolate Epenesa and keep him from falling on top of Patterson and hurting him or mucking up the screen game to the question, can Patterson keep. Espenesa plays and looks like, "what we wanted Rashan Gary to be." Looking at the video of him he looks like an out of control Chris Wormley.

So, can Patterson do all the parts of the Arc-Read? If he can't forget the run game. That's not to say M can't do hybrid Air-Raid well, I just don't think they can win v. Iowa without a run game of some sort to set up the RPO or PA, if power is what the coaches choose to put out there. I hope not. I also don't think M is good enough at it to win games with a power run game. Stick to what you started with: the ZR/RPO offense and get better at it.

Announcement

Iowa @ Michigan, Saturday, October 5th, Noon, FOX/Fox Video.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment